No. 19-616

W.A., Individually and on Behalf of W.E., et al. v. Hendrick Hudson Central School District

Lower Court: Second Circuit
Docketed: 2019-11-14
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Tags: circuit-split deference-to-administrative-decisions due-process free-appropriate-public-education idea-fape-private-school-deference-administrative- individuals-with-disabilities-education-act private-placement school-district-obligations special-education-law standard-of-review
Latest Conference: 2020-01-17
Question Presented (from Petition)

1. When a school district defaults on its obligations to provide a student with a disability a free appropriate public education (FAPE) as guaranteed by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (the IDEA), what is the standard to determine whether a parent's private placement is proper under the Act?

2. What is the level of deference that a district court must provide to the state proceeding on the issue of whether a private school is appropriate?

Question Presented (AI Summary)

When a school district defaults on its obligations to provide a student with a disability a free appropriate public education (FAPE) as guaranteed by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, what is the standard to determine whether a parent's private placement is proper under the Act?

Docket Entries

2020-01-21
Petition DENIED.
2019-12-30
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/17/2020.
2019-12-26
Reply of petitioners W.A., Individually and on Behalf of W.E., et al. filed. (Distributed)
2019-12-16
Brief of respondent Hendrick Hudson Central School District in opposition filed.
2019-11-12
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 16, 2019)
2019-09-05
Application (19A256) granted by Justice Ginsburg extending the time to file until November 11, 2019.
2019-08-29
Application (19A256) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from September 12, 2019 to November 11, 2019, submitted to Justice Ginsburg.

Attorneys

Hendrick Hudson Central School District
Daniel PetigrowThomas, Drohan, Waxman, Petigrow & Mayle, LLP, Respondent
W.A., Individually and on Behalf of W.E., et al.
Marion M. WalshLittman Krooks LLP, Petitioner